main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Why don't Christians accept Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Obi-Wan McCartney, Nov 25, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Obi-Wan McCartney

    Obi-Wan McCartney Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 17, 1999
    Well, that's my entire point. The evidence isn't conclusive, it isn't up to the standard of say knowing history because even if certain historical things the bible claims happened, it does not lead to even a "good" assumption that anything DIVINE was involved.

    Therefore, the ONLY justification for a belief in Christs' divinity is faith and faith alone. The essential link here is not whether Jesus existed but whether he was divine, and that leap can only be made by faith.

    There is not a single shred of evidence demonstrating Jesus was the son of God. Even the bible's divinity must be accepted as a matter of faith. There is no evidence to wholeheartedly justify the Mormon faith either, but like Kimball said, it ultimately comes down to faith in Joseph Smith and God.

    Indeed, it seems insulting to Jews and other religions to claim that if they only studied the bible they too would see it's truth. THis is false, only those with faith in the bible's legitimacy and Christ's divinity accept it as true.
     
  2. Jedi_Master201

    Jedi_Master201 Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    May 5, 2001
    "There is not a single shred of evidence demonstrating Jesus was the son of God."


    I disagree.
     
  3. Obi-Wan McCartney

    Obi-Wan McCartney Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 17, 1999
    Evidence that isn't based on something that you already have to have faith to believe as true, like the bible.
     
  4. Jedi_Master201

    Jedi_Master201 Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    May 5, 2001
  5. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    By "equal footing" I simply mean equal footing in terms of support -- both internal consistency and external verification.

    I seperate that into two different items. First, all scripture (namely all divinely inspired writings) are on equal footing from a spiritual perspective. It doesn't matter which prophet was commanded to write the scripture, its ultimate source is from God. As all scripture is from God, it will all be internally consistent. Ultimately, it is only through God that we can know if something is scripture or not, as He is the source of all scripture.

    At the same time, there is the external verification. This is not as important from the spiritual perspective. Are the teachings of the Bible lessened because we don not have archeological proof of the Garden of Eden?

    If the Book of Mormon makes claims that are not complimentary with the Bible, then the question of support becomes vitally important.

    One trap to avoid, though, is confusing interpretation that is not complementary and actually not being complementary. Before you say that a teaching is not complementary, make sure that you are not trying to force the teaching to conform to pre-existing paradigms that may not be correct. Look at the overall interpretation first, and see if the complete interpretation (from both the Bible and Book of Mormon) is consistent.

    It's possible that Jesus actually spoke in Greek, but regardless: our oldest manuscripts are transcriptions of the originals within the same language (Greek), and we can translate directly from those manuscripts. There are many English translations of the Bible, sure, but most of them are separate translations from the original Greek -- not from other mere translations.

    At the same time, many of the translations have been compared with others. I'm sure that you would agree that there are errors in every translation. Even the modern translations have been compared with previous translations, as well as translations from other languages (such as Latin), to try to maintain accuracy. Depending on which exact translation you are talking about, the chain of translation(s) behind it will vary.

    First, while the Old Testament anticipates the New -- through its numerous Messianic prophecies -- there is nothing to suggest that the Bible (Old or New Testament) anticipates the Book of Mormon. You ask, why not a second "John the Baptist"? I ask, why should we expect one?

    Actually, we believe that there are several prophecies (both New and Old Testaments) relating to the restoration of the Gospel and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. I'd be happy to compile a list for you sometime, if you want.

    Second, I'm not certain you actually hold both in equal regard. You may revere the New Testament "as it was originally written," but you seem to imply that, because of errors arising from multiple translations, the Book of Mormon would be given greater weight when push comes to shove.

    Ultimately, we give the greatest weight to living prophets more than anything. Christ spoke on the importance of this in Both Luke 11 and Matthew 23.

    And there are some areas where we give more support the the BoM than the Bible, and there are others where the reverse is true. There is no default "this is better than that".

    There are apocryphal books -- "pseudepigraphia," other gospels and letters -- that aren't accepted as part of Scripture. Should we extend the attitude to them, too?

    No; those books are written later than canon and are inconsistent with canon. We can't simply say, "we should trust scripture because it's scripture."

    Likewise, we shouldn't just accept the Book of Mormon because it asserts divine authority. What backs up that assertion?


    First, I was very careful to say scripture, not simply writings. Scripture is, by definition, divinely inspired. However, just because something claims to be scripture does not mean that it is so.

    What backs up the assertion that the Book of Mormon is scripture? First of all
     
  6. Jedi_Master_Anakin

    Jedi_Master_Anakin Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 25, 2002
    OWM

    First off, I would like to appologize to you if this sounds rude, but I can't express myself otherwise. So please, can we still be friends afterwords?

    I mean, if it fits so perfectly, Bubba, then why would the Jews deny it? I do not accept the idea that everything correlates perfectly, because if it did I doubt the Jews would deny Jesus.

    One of the big reasons they denied Christ was because they expected a military leader to deliver them from the Roman's. Christ wasn't exactly a big "war-pusher" so the denied him.

    To me, rationalizing it doesn't work out all for this very reason, if God is invovled, reasonably, ANYTHING is possible. It HAS to be solely a leap of faith. You believe in Jesus, and you admit it's because you believe, it's your faith. Your denial of his second coming can't be based on reasoning of the bible, it too must be based on faith. I like how Kimball asked himself spiritually whether he believed, and he felt the touch of God, so he believed. Not because he rationalized scripture, but because he had faith

    I was with you until you said we deny his second coming. There has been no second coming my friend (yet). But your exactly right. Like I have said a thousand times. I feel, and have asked myself countless times whether what I believe is right or wrong. And after all this time I still feel that what I believe is right to me. If others choose to follow a seperate path, then so be it. I however am completely happy with my faith, and won't change it, becuase I have such a feeling that it is what I'm supposed to do.

    However, if it is solely a matter of faith, or if it ultimately comes down to a matter of faith, as Kimball has suggested (but strangely the rest of the Christians seem to not want to accept), then it isn't arbitrary at all, it's a matter of personal faith and conviction.

    WTF? I've said it a thousand times it's about faith, or what you believe.

    And furthermore. Although I don't believe it is all about faith, I believe there are other parts into it. Such a validation which you have tried to beat to death, while ignoring the entire point.

    I mean seriously, if it were any other book that didn't have every aspect of its historical accuracy tested, and found true, you would most likely accept it because most of it has been found accurate. WOuld you dismiss the entire book because some of it hasn't been tested?

    But EVEN IF the only thing stopping me from being a Mormon is the fact that my faith lies SOLY in the Bible, and not in the BoM, is true. It doesn't matter. Your example about the Jew's having the same justification for not believing in Christ is hogwash.

    The Jews didn't believe in CHrist because the expectations their parents and their parents, parents had placed upon them were for a political, military, and overwhelming savior. Things that the OT never mentions. And because of this, Christ (being the peace loving Man He was) was completely rejected and finaly killed by the very people he was meant to save.

    However, The Bible can have references to the establishment of the Mormon Religion, but IMO, only if you look for it. I've looked in the Bible a hundred thousand times, and I still don't find enough evidence to make the Mormon Religion true. So it is that, along with my compiled faith I have assumed during my time as a Christian, that make the Mormon Religion not right for me.

    Singularity

    I am not asking myself "why not?" because I am applying a consistent analysis to both an concluding both the Bible and the Book of Mormon do not deserve my belief in their respective claims. However, I am asking "why not?" of someone such as yourself that has apparently applied one standard to one book and another standard to the other. This is the inconsistency I am referring to and asserting is just further evidence of the arbitrary nature of faith. Otherwise, provide the basis why you bestow your faith upon the Bible but not the Book of Mormon

    THat is where you are wrong. We are not(at least I'
     
  7. Obi-Wan McCartney

    Obi-Wan McCartney Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 17, 1999
    Don't worry, JMA, your post wasn't rude. And yeah, I think we agree here, my posts were directed at Bubba, not you.

    However, where I disagree with both you and BUbba is in your interpretation of the Jews. To me, the Jews are no more incorrect for denying Christ than you are for denying the Mormon addition to the faith.

    But yeah, I worry too when I find myself agreeing with Kimball. ;)
     
  8. scum&villainy

    scum&villainy Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 8, 1999
    Surely one can add Mohammed to the list as well?
     
  9. Singularity

    Singularity Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Apr 21, 2002
    THat is where you are wrong. We are not(at least I'm not) placing different standards upon the books. [....] And afterwords, I found that I didn't believe the BoM half as much as I believed the Bible. This is based upon my faith (of course) and on the knowledge I had on the subjects dealing with inconsistencies, and the like. Is that a double standard like you are implying? No. It's just that I don't believe the BoM, and I do believe the Bible.

    Actually, it is the double standard I am referring to. You apply faith to believe the Bible but don't apply faith to the BoM. The Bible has inconsistencies and flaws. Can you state explicitly on what basis or bases you have determined that the BoM does not deserve your faith but the Bible does? I'll wager you can't. Illustrate how I'd lose that wager.

    Please. Of course you could write a religious text. But of course it would be thrown out the window today. Something that didn't exactly happen with teh texts written during the time of the Bible.

    Thrown out the window today because the assertions of someone today are clearly inferior to the writings of someone that lived two thousand years ago? And it did exactly happen with the oral traditions, tales, and other texts associated with the collection of writings you refer to as the Bible. Judaism was a splintered cult at best in hits infancy. People believed David Koresh and other cult leaders in the past with little or no basis. Who knows which myth the memetic lottery will casst into the spotlight in the future? Further, my point is that factual accuracy on certain claims does not render all claims in the relevant text valid. This point stands unrefuted by your response.

    See above. Wow though. You've illistrated? So should we just stop the debate now, because You've illistrated it's false? Come on, your arguments are opinion just like the rest of ours!

    Interesting. Instead of addressing my point head on you deflect and disengage. My arguments are not opinion. They are reasoned assertions. Refute them if you are able. But if you are not able to at least have the courtesy to either be silent or admit as much rather than subject us to this type of disingenuous polemic.
     
  10. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Damnit, I can't agree with Kimball, I can't agree with Kimball!

    I think you misspelled "argue" there. Twice. :p

    Kimball Kinnison
     
  11. Jedi_Master201

    Jedi_Master201 Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    May 5, 2001
    "Actually, it is the double standard I am referring to. You apply faith to believe the Bible but don't apply faith to the BoM. The Bible has inconsistencies and flaws. Can you state explicitly on what basis or bases you have determined that the BoM does not deserve your faith but the Bible does? I'll wager you can't. Illustrate how I'd lose that wager."


    I didn't want to attack Joseph Smith personally, as it would offend some people around here, I'm sure. But, you asked.


    Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't Smith, before the whole revelation thing, a member of the occult? Demons are involved in that, according to the Bible. Of course, it is just another way for them to lead people away from God, but in the occult, Satan and his angels play a significantly more active role in their misleading. This is not to say definitively that Smith was mislead by Satan, but...well, I'll leave it at that.


    Another reason I do not accept the BoM as readily as I do the New Testament (or the rest of the Bible for that matter) is that with the BoM, and really the entire LDS faith, it was just one man, and supposedly God. With the accounts pertaining to Jesus' first coming, however, there were many other people involved. It's a little easier to spread a lie when you're the only one who made it up.


    If you desire more reasons as to why some of us accept the Bible and not the BoM, Singularity, just ask; though I doubt you'll ever be satisfied until we bow to your wishes and admit to the false idea that it's all arbitrary faith at work.
     
  12. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't Smith, before the whole revelation thing, a member if the occult? Demons are involved in that, according to the Bible. Of course, it is just another way for them to lead people away from God, but in the occult, Satan and his angels play a significantly more active role in their misleading. This is not to say definitively that Smith was mislead by Satan, but...well, I'll leave it at that.

    No, he was not. The First Vision occurred when he was 14 years old, and before that time his family had been Christian, but mostly unaffiliated with any major denominations. It wasn't until a series of revivals came to their area that any members of his family actually joined or started attending any specific denomination.

    Joseph, himself, had been leaning towards the Methodist Church, and it was his confusion over which church to join that led him to go into the woods to pray when he recieved the First Vision.

    Another reason I do not accept that BoM as readily as I do the New Testament (or the rest of the Bible for that matter) is that with the BoM, and really the entire LDS faith, it was just one man, and supposedly God. With the accounts pertaining to Jesus' first coming, howver, there were many other people involved. It's a little easier to spread a lie when you're the only one who made it up.

    Actually, there were many other people involved in the process. Martin Harris, Emma Smith, and Oliver Cowdery all helped with the translation of the Book of Mormon (acting as scribes). There were 11 witnesses to the gold plates (and their testimonies are available here and here). None of those witnesses ever renounced their testimonies (even though several of them later left the Church). Many others participated in the reestablishment of the Church.

    Kimball Kinnison
     
  13. son_of_the_tear

    son_of_the_tear Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Jun 23, 1999
    The reason we, the Jews, don't believe in Christ is because he did not meet the requirements set forth. Yes, one of them being that he would be a millitary leader, but it's not a simple as that. Jesus, to us, did not fulfill the requirements set forth in the Torah (or Hebrew Bible)
     
  14. Jedi_Master201

    Jedi_Master201 Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    May 5, 2001
    Could you explain a few other requirements He did not meet, and how He failed to meet them?


    EDIT: And forgive me, KK. I guess I was misinformed.
     
  15. Stackpole_The_Hobbit

    Stackpole_The_Hobbit Jedi Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Jebus, this exploded :p

    Very VERY late:

    The Devil believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ. He knows it for a cold hard fact. Does that make Satan a Christian?

    Actually, yes.

    Satanists are Christians, as Satan is originally introduced in the Christian scriptures. They simply pick the other side. (Yes, it's a stretch, but it's true)

    EDIT: Technicality: The Devil, as per the quote, 'knows [of the divinity of Jesus Christ] for a cold hard fact.' Ergo, he does not believe in the divinity as he KNOWS it.
     
  16. Jedi_Master_Anakin

    Jedi_Master_Anakin Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 25, 2002
    OWM

    However, where I disagree with both you and BUbba is in your interpretation of the Jews. To me, the Jews are no more incorrect for denying Christ than you are for denying the Mormon addition to the faith.

    I agree and disagree. I agree in the sense, that it is merely a faith based decision. But I disagree that the Jews are no more incorrect than Non-Mormon Christians are for not accepting Smith and the latter-day Prophets. Becuase, in my personal experience, many Jews don't even know why they're ancestors didn't accept Christ. They read the Bible, and don't get it themselves. I am not saying that all Jewish persons are this way, just many that I have talked with.

    However, I as a Christian, know exactly why I accept Christ. For the reasons I've mentioned before. Faith, historical evidence, etc... But I think we might never agree on this subject, and although it is nerely useless to keep debating it, its just so much fun!

    Singularity

    Actually, it is the double standard I am referring to. You apply faith to believe the Bible but don't apply faith to the BoM. The Bible has inconsistencies and flaws. Can you state explicitly on what basis or bases you have determined that the BoM does not deserve your faith but the Bible does? I'll wager you can't. Illustrate how I'd lose that wager.

    Did you even read my post? I explained why I don't have faith in the book. I read it twice and didn't believe it was true. I did the EXACT SAME THING with the BIble and found it to be true. To say this is a double standard is like saying if I read to books on a similar subject and prefer one over the other is a double standard. That's just silly. If I, having read both the Bible and the BoM twice cover to cover, prefer one book over the other, I am not placing a double standard, as I placed EQUAL reception on both of the books. So yes, I'll make that wager with you, and I believe I can darn well win it.

    Thrown out the window today because the assertions of someone today are clearly inferior to the writings of someone that lived two thousand years ago? And it did exactly happen with the oral traditions, tales, and other texts associated with the collection of writings you refer to as the Bible. Judaism was a splintered cult at best in hits infancy. People believed David Koresh and other cult leaders in the past with little or no basis. Who knows which myth the memetic lottery will casst into the spotlight in the future? Further, my point is that factual accuracy on certain claims does not render all claims in the relevant text valid. This point stands unrefuted by your response.

    Ok, I see your point. Your point of saying that factual accuracy does not render all claims correct, is true. But that is true of any book. So are we not to accept any history books then? Because we can't prove everything in a History book, considering we would have to use other Historical books/texts to verify them. What your doing is creating an impossibility to render a Historical Document true. So even you, have to have some kind of Faith in your History Books to believe their correct.

    Interesting. Instead of addressing my point head on you deflect and disengage. My arguments are not opinion. They are reasoned assertions. Refute them if you are able. But if you are not able to at least have the courtesy to either be silent or admit as much rather than subject us to this type of disingenuous polemic.

    I you didn't notice, I was being sarcastic. Sorry if you took it seriously. I was having a bit of fun, because I think your taking this a little to seriously. I was trying to "lighten the mood". But I really do appologize if you took it seriously.

    KK

    I think you misspelled "argue" there. Twice. :p

    I did, didn't I? Well we'll just have to edit that post! :p

    Actually, there were many other people involved in the process. Martin Harris, Emma Smith, and Oliver Cowdery all helped with the translation of the Book of Mormon (acting as scribes). There
     
  17. Obi-Wan McCartney

    Obi-Wan McCartney Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 17, 1999
    JMA, I don't think your point about the validity of historical documents is valid, since there is no document on earth that can prove the claims made by the bible, regarding Jesus being the son of God.

    You can get way more proof that say the American Revolution happened through the corroborated accounts, there is no way on earth to prove that God exists and Jesus was his begotten son.
     
  18. Jedi_Master_Anakin

    Jedi_Master_Anakin Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 25, 2002
    OWM,

    Yes, what you say is true. But I mean more along the lines of events that actually occured during the Old Testement that have been proven, ie.. consitent and great storms, and the like. Not meaning that God is real and CHrist is His son.

    Peace and Unity

    JMA
     
  19. Bubba_the_Genius

    Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Quick reply, KK.

    While I agree that every translation of the Bible probably has some errors, I don't believe the errors are profound; most of the important messages are repeated in several passages, easing the task of interpretation.

    A couple questions, though, come to mind:

    - Why do Mormons uphold the KJV over all other translations? After all, the more modern translations, working off older manuscripts, are probably slightly less prone to error and are easier for the modern man to understand.

    - Why does a book translated in the mid-nineteenth century read like the King James Version of the Bible? The KJV was intended to be easily understood by its contemporary readers in Elizabethan England. Likewise, the Gospels were written in informal Greek, what Eugene Peterson calls the "street language" of the day. Even Jesus' parables themselves were aimed toward the common man and his experiences with farming and shepherding.

    If a book from the 1800's was supposed to be from the God of the Bible, I would expect the same attempt to stoop down as low as is needed to reach the intended audience. I would expect language that was nearer to Mark Twain than William Shakespeare.

    The fact that the Book of Mormon is in Elizabethan English is troubling, to say the least.


    "Second, I'm not certain you actually hold both in equal regard. You may revere the New Testament 'as it was originally written,' but you seem to imply that, because of errors arising from multiple translations, the Book of Mormon would be given greater weight when push comes to shove."

    Ultimately, we give the greatest weight to living prophets more than anything. Christ spoke on the importance of this in Both Luke 11 and Matthew 23.


    I've reviewed both chapters, and I'm not sure how you're drawing that conclusion.

    Also, begs the question: how do you know these passages weren't irreparably damaged? After all, Mormons hold that parts of the Bible have been terribly mistranslated.


    The same question goes for the passages that you say point to and predict the Book of Mormon.

    And, I'm not aware of any such passages. Going through them would be helpful.
     
  20. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    I will respond, Bubba, but it will have to wait. I will be gone for about a week to attend my sister's wedding, have a medical test done, and finish a major microcontroller-based project (due the 11th).

    In the meantime, if you have the time, I recommend that you look through the Mormonism thread. We've already talked a lot about several of your points in there, so it might save some time.

    Kimball Kinnison
     
  21. Bubba_the_Genius

    Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Fair enough -- still a bit busy myself. Have a good trip.


    EDIT: Haven't reviewed the entire thread, but I did come across this point you made on 6/26, 2:05pm.

    When God speaks through prophets, he works through the vocabulary and speech that they have. While Joseph was not well read, he had read the King James Version of the Bible quite a bit, and its language was the language he was most familiar with in dealing with spiritual or religious terms. Much the same way that if you asked me to translate an algorithm into computer code, I would do it in C++ or Visual Basic, since those are the languages I am the most familiar with.
    This theory seems questionable unless Smith knew Elizabethan English better than he knew the "street language" of 19th century America -- a possibility that seems to run contrary to the idea that he wasn't well read.

    There's another reason people write programs in C++. With the right compiler, the computer can understand what's being written. Programmers write in a language that the computer can understand. Likewise, I would imagine that a prophet would write in a language that's easily accessible to the intended audience. The Gospel writers did that; it doesn't appear that Smith followed suit.
     
  22. The_Nameless_One

    The_Nameless_One Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Apr 21, 2002
    There is a simple answer to the origianl question:
    Christianity is a much older fraud, so it's more acceptable - Mormonism is a far more recent fraud, so it isn't so acceptable.
     
  23. Jedi_Master_Anakin

    Jedi_Master_Anakin Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 25, 2002
    There is a simple answer to the origianl question:
    Christianity is a much older fraud, so it's more acceptable - Mormonism is a far more recent fraud, so it isn't so acceptable.


    *clap clap clap* WOW! Did you think of that one all by yourself?

    Peace and Unity

    JMA
     
  24. MasterZap

    MasterZap Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 11, 2002
  25. Bubba_the_Genius

    Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Can we as a group not conclude that it's simply unnecessary to make broad disparaging remarks without proof in a forum designed for debate and not mudslinging?

    Look, quite a few of us non-Mormon Christians think there are, in fact, very good reasons to reject Mormon texts. If you want to actually disagree, make your case. If you want to just throw stones at those who want to have a serious discussion, you should devote your time to more useful endeavors. There is no sense whatsoever in people being subjected to this unceasing sneering. It's not thoughtful debate stemming from a genuine disagreement; it's nothing but venomous mockery.

    "Religon is an opiate. Religion is a virus. A fraud. A scam." Ad naseum.

    This doesn't pursuade people that your position is right. Rather, it puts the lie to the assertion you people are rational and open-minded. It makes you instead look irrational and close-minded in your hatred and bigotry. It certainly doesn't make you any friends among those who disagree with you.

    Most importantly, you're showing blatant disregard for this forum's Rules of Conduct, which expressly forbids speech that is abusive, hateful, and harassing:

    "Also, as a general guideline, all users here should respect one another's opinions and beliefs."

    Start showing some consideration for the forum's terms of service and the forum's religious members. Start controlling what you write, or I will vigorously petition the moderators to do it for you.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.